Discussion- Recommendation to the SCLS Board of Trustees
regarding the Governance Structure: Laura Page facilitated the discussion
and addressed the note cards that contained questions and topics created by the
directors during the morning session of the All-Directors meeting.

The first topic of discussion was how
the non-LINKCat libraries’ voices are to be heard. Input included the
following:

Non-LINKCat members are not as
represented as LINKCat members.
Why should non-LINKCat members have a voice in LINKCat decisions?
Non-LINKCat members don’t feel that they are getting full SCLS representation.

How do non-LINKCat members receive
communication from the ILS committee?Through clusters?Non-LINKCat ILS
representatives?Non-voting member on AC and ILS?
Who to contact with questions?

Non-LINKCat directors are urged to pay
attention to agenda and minutes from the SCLS committees.

Non-LINKCat members may not realize all
of the services that SCLS offers?

Should the non-LINKCat members form a
committee?

It was suggested that Mark Ibach and/or
Denise Anton Wright provide a link on the AC agenda to provide any new items
that may be happening in the system.
It was also suggested that a SCLS staff member attend a non-LINKCat meeting.

J. Berg moved approval to form a non-LINKCat
committee facilitated by SCLS staff.P.
Bosben seconded.
D. McCabe moved to table the motion.A.
Barnett seconded.Motion carried.

The Governance Structure Work Group will
put this topic on their next agenda to discuss further.

The second topic discussed was the proposed county based cluster model.The proposed cluster revision is based on counties
and would change from 15 to 13 clusters and the “at-large” positions would be
eliminated.Each county would receive
one seat with the exception of DCLS (2), DC Suburban (2) and MPL (3).Another change includes cluster
representatives presenting all viewpoints of their cluster (majority and
minority) with the intent to facilitate dialogue and discussion with consensus
as the end result.

With regard to the roles of the
committees (AC, Technology, Delivery), they are recognized as advisory – no
voting will take place and consensus will be the goal.Any appeals from AC or ILS will go directly
to the SCLS Board.

A. Barnett moved approval of the
proposed county based cluster model recommendation to the SCLS Board as
presented by the Governance Structure Work Group.S. Lee seconded.Motion carried.6 yes, 2 no.

The two members of the AC who voted
against the motion noted their reasoning was:

1.Not being clear on how the consensus will work with voting and polling.

2.A suggestion that there needs to be a commitment to training for
directors regarding consensus building and meeting facilitation, etc.

M. Van Pelt pointed out the problem
with the vote passing still left “winners” and “losers” and that the goal of
the new governance structure was to create better problem solving through
consensus. There was quite a bit of discussion regarding voting versus seats
and the role of the AC as an advisory committee.J. Berg suggested the group try working on
the recommendation through consensus.

J. Chase moved to reconsider the vote
for the proposed county based cluster model.B. Miller seconded. Motion carried.The AC voted against approval of the proposal county based cluster model
to the SCLS Board.It was decided that the
note cards that contained questions created from the directors during the
All-Directors meeting will be summarized and emailed to all the member
directors to review and discuss at their cluster meetings.The cluster representatives will then present
the views of their clusters regarding the governance structure recommendations
at the AC meeting in December.

Because of time, all other topics were
tabled.

Reports of action of committees/workgroups:All tabled until December meeting